Opinion
2:22-cv-02131-JDP (PC)
04-27-2023
JOHN CHARLES BEGBIE FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. JAROLD MARC, Defendant.
ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This action was opened when John Fowler submitted an unsigned complaint. ECF No. 1. On December 8, 2022, I notified Mr. Fowler that he had not properly commenced a civil action because he had not signed the complaint, and that he needed either to submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 4; see Fed.R.Civ.P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”). I granted him thirty days to comply with that order and warned him that failure to do so would result in this case being closed. Id. Mr. Fowler failed to comply with that order by the deadline; accordingly, on March 3, 2023, I ordered him to show cause for why this action should not dismissed. ECF No. 5.
To date, Mr. Fowler has not complied with either the December 8 or March 3 orders or otherwise responded. Consequently, there is no case before the court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 3.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case.
Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.